Bowers v. Gloucester Corporation

STRICT INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

The construction of a statute according to its letter is a construction which takes the language used in its literal sense. When a strict construction is appropriate, the particular case to come within the purview of the statute must be within both its letter and its spirit and reason. The literal meaning of a statute is that which the words express, taking them in their natural and ordinary sense. Strict construction of a statute confines its operation to cases which are clearly within the letter of the law as well as within its spirit and reason. It is not enough that the letter of the law may include the given situation unless the spirit and reason of the law also include it.

Further, according to Sutherland, a strict interpretation would depend on multiple factors such as:

• With reference to former law

• With reference to the rights and persons affected

• With reference to the letter or language of the statute

• With reference to the purpose and object of the statute.

{6.4 Strict and Liberal Construction, by N.S. Bindra}

FACTS

The Respondent was licensed as a hackney carriage by the Watch Committee. In February 1962, the Watch Committee revoked the licence of the Respondent, exercising their powers under Section 50 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847. The Respondent was guilty of one offence against the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 (permitting the use of a vehicle without a hackney carriage licence). He was also convicted of four offences (of a different character) against the licensing authority’s by-laws.

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current scenario was whether there existed power to revoke the licence of the Respondent under Section 50 of the Act based on the described convictions.

RULE

The relevant provision was Section 50 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847.

JUDGEMENT OF THE RECORDER

It was held by the Recorder that Section 50 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 was ambiguous. He observed that the Section, being a penal Section, should be construed more favourably to the Appellant (the driver/owner, not the Corporation). The Recorder held that the Watch Committee had no power to revoke the licences.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• This Hon'ble court held that the Recorder came to a wrong conclusion. It observed that the Recorder’s wrong conclusion was a fault of first impression. The Section perceived the meaning of the word “offence” as “any offence”, and it was deemed to be unnecessary that there should be two convictions for two identical offences.

• The court observed that even though a penal provision is strictly construed, that only applies when the matter is still left in doubt after applying the proper canons of interpretation.

• In the current scenario, the term “any” should be given the wide meaning that it normally bears. The court took into account the mischief aimed at by the Act, which was to keep strict control on taxi cab drivers and proprietors.

• The court considered the absurdity that would arise from the Recorder's interpretation: a driver could demonstrate unfitness by committing 50 different offences (one of each kind) and yet not have the licence revoked because he never committed a second identical offence.

• Finally, this Hon'ble court held that the term “any” is perceived as it is. There clearly existed power to revoke the licence, and the matter should be sent back to the Recorder. The strict interpretation of "offence" in the singular was rejected in favor of the plain, broad meaning of "any offence" to give effect to the legislative purpose.